> But there are problems. In the Evaluation And Report Language [1],
> we're basically quite stumped as to what things are being evaluated.
> For example, we might have the following Webpage that talks about a
This is an awesome explanation of why we care about how people choose to
use http: identifiers. The semantic web is about interoperable
metadata. If the metadata can't flow, aggregate, and interoperate, it's
*not* going to be a semantic web. Interoperability means that if I
aggregate 500 different assertions from different sources, all about
http://www.microsoft.com, I know that they all are talking about the
same "thing". If I can't even guarantee that much, then all of this
semantic web talk is a waste of time. I hope people can see from Sean's
example why this is such a fundamental thing to get out of the way.